A "buzzword" is a word or phrase, often an item of jargon, that is fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context. Genealogy, like many other pursuits, has its fads and buzzwords. We usually unconsciously implement these "buzzwords" into our own language when we talk about what we do and when we communicate with others. Sometimes buzzwords are important-sounding, usually technical, words or phrases that are often of little meaning and used chiefly to impress laymen or non-adherents. Often, buzzwords are coined in response to an overly active concern for "political" correctness.
In our current online genealogical community, buzzwords and political correctness are both very evident. Mixed in with these types of words are a sprinkling of acronyms and other obscure terms that are hallmarks of the "in" genealogist. When you start to overlay genealogical buzzwords with the proliferation of the jargon terms in the computer industry, you might begin to understand that to a non-initiate, genealogy can seem to be impenetrable.
Probably the most currently used genealogical buzzwords originate with the popular DNA fad. You could make a whole dictionary of obscure and technical DNA related terms that the common person, outside of the few cognoscenti, would have no idea of their meaning. Those steeped in the hallowed halls of DNA research revel in their use of words that were previously only the purview of geneticists and biological researchers. Using the terminology, like all use of buzzwords, helps to validate the insider and exclude those who are not aware of the importance of their work notwithstanding the fact that most genealogists have no idea how DNA is supposed to help them find their ancestors.
The main issue with buzzwords (and political correctness) is to make sure that you can differentiate between the jargon and the reality. For example, FamilySearch.org has an "App Gallery." The word "app" is both computer jargon and a current buzzword. Short for "application," it was originally used to refer to the limited-use programs on cell phones, but soon became an alternate term for all programs. Unfortunately the unfamiliar term "app" used in conjunction with the term "gallery" fails to communicate what is essentially a catalog listing of computer programs that support family history. To those involved in the computer industry or the online world, the word "app" may seem a standard term, but to most outside the community, it is a coined word with little or not meaning and the word "gallery" is most commonly used to refer to a room or building that is dedicated to a specific purpose, usually the display or sale of works of art.
As a linguist I am very much aware that languages are living, changing constructs and that, especially with English, we can expect new words to be coined regularly. But genealogists inherit a huge vocabulary of terms that have a special meaning in the context of our research and recording. Take for example the term "pedigree." The most common use of this term refers to purebred animals. It is only genealogists that substitute the term "pedigree" for "ancestry," as in "I am recording my pedigree." To make things more confusing the term pedigree also is used as an adjective as in "pedigree chart" to refer to a specific type of form.
Obviously I could go on and on and comment on virtually every term used by genealogists, but the point is that we need to become more adaptable to the differences in jargon although I do resist most of the trend towards political correctness.
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Sunday, April 17, 2016
Saturday, April 16, 2016
End of Line -- Speculation or Reality?
Some time ago a commentator to a post I wrote accused me of being "unprofessional" because I failed to adequately prove, to the commentator's satisfaction, that one of my family lines as shown on the FamilySearch.org Family Tree was extended beyond any possible historically supported conclusions. My point, at the time, was that all family lines on all human pedigrees reach a point where the next ancestral generation cannot be supported by any reasonable documentation. In addition, I would suggest that these unwarranted extension of family lines are the result of pure fabrication on the part of the "genealogists" who insist on adding these lines to their family trees.
Of course, the difficulty in "proving" that no connection exists in the next suggested ancestral generation is a matter of personal opinion and conjecture. As little as I would like to do so, I am going to resort to a legal analogy. In the world's systems of legal justice for criminals there are two opposing approaches: the accused can be assumed by the court to be guilty or the accused can be assumed by the court to be not guilty until guilt is proven. The degree of proof in the second instance depends on the severity of the crime. Our tradition in the United States is called the "presumption of innocence" and is viewed as a fundamental right. It is expressed in the law with the Latin phrase, "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)." This is recognized as a fundamental human right by the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past years, genealogy is not law. Attempts to make what is essentially historical research into an adversarial system based on quasi-legal jargon such as the use of the words "evidence," "proof," and requiring that conclusions be made so that they are "beyond a reasonable doubt" are entirely unwarranted. Some genealogists adhere to an elaborate system that purports to establish a proof standard and advocate that this standard should be imposed on all genealogical research. However, there is basic flaw in that system or any other system that attempts to impose some standard of proof on historical research. Proof in an historical sense, requires that the researcher draw personal conclusions from his or her investigation of historical documents. The problem with the whole system is that there is no forum for an independent determination of the researcher's conclusions other than the general community of the researchers relatives and peer group. The fact that I can convince other researchers in my peer group that my conclusions are correct does not make the conclusions any more than my opinion.
But with the comments made to me that I referred to at the beginning of this post, there is a more fundamental issue involved in genealogical research than mere assertions of "proof." In law, we refer to this issue as the "burden of proof." Essentially, if a name is added to my pedigree, then who has the burden of showing (proving) that this name represents a real person who is related as a parent to the child?
Granted, genealogical researchers recognize biological, adoptive, foster and step-parent relationships, but regardless of the type of relationship, aren't we assuming that there is a parent-child relationship when we add a successive generation to a pedigree? The fundamental question here is do we assume that the relationship exists or do we assume that the relationship does not exist unless it is "proven?"
What we face is the extreme difficulty of proving a negative. If I say that two people are related, how do you go about proving that they are not related? In criminal accusations, our system of law has addressed this issue by accepting a presumption of innocence. In genealogy, we have yet to define our own position in this regard. Until we do so and until there is a consensus on the subject of the burden of proof, there is no reason to adopt or adhere to any proposed standard of proof. The proposition could be stated as follows:
In all historical and genealogical research the existence of a parent-child relationship is assumed to be missing unless and until the researcher provides a basis for his or her conclusion.
In other words, if I add another generation to my pedigree, unless I have some reasonable basis for drawing my conclusions and express (communicate) those reasons and conclusions, we must assume that no such connection exists. In effect, this places the burden on the researcher to provide documentation for any conclusion incorporated in a pedigree. Absent verifiable sources or substantiation, the relationship is presumed to be falsely claimed.
Now, if we reach this point, then we can discuss what we will or what we will not consider to be proof. However, because there does not exist a forum for either arbitrating differences or passing judgment on a researcher's conclusions, such a system of proof can never be universally applied. In fact, as is actually the case, such a system will be and is almost universally ignored.
There is one level at which such a system can work however. If a researcher fails to add any substantiation to a conclusion, i.e. adds a name to a pedigree without a source citation, any subsequent researcher can assume that the conclusion expressed by having a name in the pedigree is false and can be removed or ignored. If a researcher adds citations to historical records, then the burden passes to the subsequent researcher or researchers to evaluate and contest the conclusions from the record. Absent such support, the presumption is that there is no support.
I fully realize that such a position would severely "prune" a lot of family trees, but do we really want to continue to live in a world where there is an uncertain demarcation between reality and fantasy?
Of course, the difficulty in "proving" that no connection exists in the next suggested ancestral generation is a matter of personal opinion and conjecture. As little as I would like to do so, I am going to resort to a legal analogy. In the world's systems of legal justice for criminals there are two opposing approaches: the accused can be assumed by the court to be guilty or the accused can be assumed by the court to be not guilty until guilt is proven. The degree of proof in the second instance depends on the severity of the crime. Our tradition in the United States is called the "presumption of innocence" and is viewed as a fundamental right. It is expressed in the law with the Latin phrase, "Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (the burden of proof is on the one who declares, not on one who denies)." This is recognized as a fundamental human right by the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.
As I have pointed out repeatedly over the past years, genealogy is not law. Attempts to make what is essentially historical research into an adversarial system based on quasi-legal jargon such as the use of the words "evidence," "proof," and requiring that conclusions be made so that they are "beyond a reasonable doubt" are entirely unwarranted. Some genealogists adhere to an elaborate system that purports to establish a proof standard and advocate that this standard should be imposed on all genealogical research. However, there is basic flaw in that system or any other system that attempts to impose some standard of proof on historical research. Proof in an historical sense, requires that the researcher draw personal conclusions from his or her investigation of historical documents. The problem with the whole system is that there is no forum for an independent determination of the researcher's conclusions other than the general community of the researchers relatives and peer group. The fact that I can convince other researchers in my peer group that my conclusions are correct does not make the conclusions any more than my opinion.
But with the comments made to me that I referred to at the beginning of this post, there is a more fundamental issue involved in genealogical research than mere assertions of "proof." In law, we refer to this issue as the "burden of proof." Essentially, if a name is added to my pedigree, then who has the burden of showing (proving) that this name represents a real person who is related as a parent to the child?
Granted, genealogical researchers recognize biological, adoptive, foster and step-parent relationships, but regardless of the type of relationship, aren't we assuming that there is a parent-child relationship when we add a successive generation to a pedigree? The fundamental question here is do we assume that the relationship exists or do we assume that the relationship does not exist unless it is "proven?"
What we face is the extreme difficulty of proving a negative. If I say that two people are related, how do you go about proving that they are not related? In criminal accusations, our system of law has addressed this issue by accepting a presumption of innocence. In genealogy, we have yet to define our own position in this regard. Until we do so and until there is a consensus on the subject of the burden of proof, there is no reason to adopt or adhere to any proposed standard of proof. The proposition could be stated as follows:
In all historical and genealogical research the existence of a parent-child relationship is assumed to be missing unless and until the researcher provides a basis for his or her conclusion.
In other words, if I add another generation to my pedigree, unless I have some reasonable basis for drawing my conclusions and express (communicate) those reasons and conclusions, we must assume that no such connection exists. In effect, this places the burden on the researcher to provide documentation for any conclusion incorporated in a pedigree. Absent verifiable sources or substantiation, the relationship is presumed to be falsely claimed.
Now, if we reach this point, then we can discuss what we will or what we will not consider to be proof. However, because there does not exist a forum for either arbitrating differences or passing judgment on a researcher's conclusions, such a system of proof can never be universally applied. In fact, as is actually the case, such a system will be and is almost universally ignored.
There is one level at which such a system can work however. If a researcher fails to add any substantiation to a conclusion, i.e. adds a name to a pedigree without a source citation, any subsequent researcher can assume that the conclusion expressed by having a name in the pedigree is false and can be removed or ignored. If a researcher adds citations to historical records, then the burden passes to the subsequent researcher or researchers to evaluate and contest the conclusions from the record. Absent such support, the presumption is that there is no support.
I fully realize that such a position would severely "prune" a lot of family trees, but do we really want to continue to live in a world where there is an uncertain demarcation between reality and fantasy?
Friday, April 15, 2016
Real Genealogists Use Cameras
Whenever a subject like the one suggested by the title to this post comes up, there is always a backlash. Even genealogy has its detractors who start out saying things like, "you don't have to be a genealogist to..." and then they go on to explain something you have be a genealogist, by definition, to do. As a photographer (WalkingArizona), I also hear a lot of, "you don't have to be a professional photographer to..." statements all the time. Granted, both genealogy and photography have their "professional" side. I recently went to Victoria, British Columbia and visited the Royal British Columbia Museum. They were having a exhibit called "Wildlife Photographer of the Year." When I go to see such an exhibit, I quickly learn what it means to be a professional photographer. There were only a few of the photos that I could even imagine taking myself.
I am sure that there are those who get the same feeling when they talk to or work with an experienced genealogist. I have an extensive background in genealogy and a lot of other subjects, but I frequently talk to other genealogists who know far more than I do on a multitude of subjects. I had an opportunity to look at some church records from the Netherlands (more about this later), such as this one:
Here is a closer look at the entry I was interested in.
I have to admit that it is going to take me a while to be able to adequately read this particular style of writing. Just when you might start believing you know something, this comes along and shows you how really far you have to go.
So twice in a week or so, I was shown how far I had to go in photography and again in genealogy.
So, was I serious when I said real genealogists use cameras? Yes, I was as a matter of fact. A camera is an indispensable tool for anyone, at any level of family history, genealogy or whatever you want to call it. I still see people laboriously copying entries in books and other records by hand into notes, when all they have to do is pull out their cell phone and take a photo of the entire page in a few seconds.
I went to a Brigham Young University surplus equipment sale this week. We visited the electronics department and the had floor to ceiling shelves overflowing with electronic junk. When I say junk, I mean junk. You could buy a relatively recently manufactured computer in working condition for $5.00. No, this is not a mistake. You could buy a more recent one loaded with Windows 7 with a 1 Terabyte hard drive for $77. I saw one lady pick up an older camera, 2.3 Megapixels, and look at it for a while and then throw it back on the pile. My older iPhone has an 8 MP camera.
Really, I am serious. You can buy a Sony 20.1 MP digital camera on Amazon.com for $88. See
Sony DSCW800/B 20.1 MP Digital Camera (Black). By the way, that camera is marked down from $89.99. You could also walk into any Walmart store and buy any number of similar cameras for under a $100.
I am sure that there are those who get the same feeling when they talk to or work with an experienced genealogist. I have an extensive background in genealogy and a lot of other subjects, but I frequently talk to other genealogists who know far more than I do on a multitude of subjects. I had an opportunity to look at some church records from the Netherlands (more about this later), such as this one:
 |
| "Netherlands, Noord-Holland Province, Church Records, 1523-1948," images, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-31158-16615-85?cc=2037985 : accessed 15 April 2016), Nederlands Hervormde > Amsterdam > Dopen 1673-1697 > image 524 of 604; Nederlands Rijksarchiefdienst, Den Haag (Netherlands National Archives, The Hague). |
I have to admit that it is going to take me a while to be able to adequately read this particular style of writing. Just when you might start believing you know something, this comes along and shows you how really far you have to go.
So twice in a week or so, I was shown how far I had to go in photography and again in genealogy.
So, was I serious when I said real genealogists use cameras? Yes, I was as a matter of fact. A camera is an indispensable tool for anyone, at any level of family history, genealogy or whatever you want to call it. I still see people laboriously copying entries in books and other records by hand into notes, when all they have to do is pull out their cell phone and take a photo of the entire page in a few seconds.
I went to a Brigham Young University surplus equipment sale this week. We visited the electronics department and the had floor to ceiling shelves overflowing with electronic junk. When I say junk, I mean junk. You could buy a relatively recently manufactured computer in working condition for $5.00. No, this is not a mistake. You could buy a more recent one loaded with Windows 7 with a 1 Terabyte hard drive for $77. I saw one lady pick up an older camera, 2.3 Megapixels, and look at it for a while and then throw it back on the pile. My older iPhone has an 8 MP camera.
Really, I am serious. You can buy a Sony 20.1 MP digital camera on Amazon.com for $88. See
Sony DSCW800/B 20.1 MP Digital Camera (Black). By the way, that camera is marked down from $89.99. You could also walk into any Walmart store and buy any number of similar cameras for under a $100.
These are mostly point and shoot cameras. The recent popularity of Instagram illustrates the pervasiveness of cameras in our society today. The key here is to always, always, always, carry your camera around with you. Then when you think, oh, I could take a photo of that, you can.
Thursday, April 14, 2016
All the Ships at Sea
Genealogy, in many cases is a matter of connecting the dots. For immigrants to America and other places, the "dots" includes not only discovering their place of origin, but also how they managed to cross the ocean. For many American immigrants it is sometimes possible to discover them in passenger lists both when they arrived in America and when the left Europe. In some cases, the name of the ship carrying its passengers has been preserved in family records.
One of my ancestral families, the Parkinsons, came to America from England by way of Australia. Our family records give the name of the ship that they took from England to Australia. It is recorded as the "St. Vincent" arriving in Sydney, Australia on the the 13th of March, 1849. Fortunately, we have a rich heritage of shipping records that include passenger lists and ship manifests, many of which have been digitized and are available online. So I began my search for the St. Vincent. A quick Google search turned up the following from this website: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Merchant/Sail/S/St_Vincent(1865).html
So, despite the record I first found, there must be another record of a ship by that name. A continued search found the New South Wales 'Online' microfilm of shipping lists. This long list contained the following record of the arrival of the St. Vincent on 11 March 1849.
This website also had a digitized copy of the above passenger list. Incidentally, I also found that Trove.nla.gov.au, the huge Australian website from the Australian National Library has a searchable list of newspaper immigrant arrivals.
These finds show that there are several ways to add information about an immigrant:
As I kept searching, I found yet another website listing the arrival of the ship in Australia. See Passenger Ships Arriving in Australian Ports. In fact, I kept finding more and more references to the ship lists that included this particular vessel. In fact, I found a drawing of the ship leaving England.
Here is the list.
One significant collection of passenger lists is contained in the British Board of Trade Series 27 Passenger lists for ships departing English ports from 1890 to 1960 which can be searched on Findmypast.com and Ancestry.com. The key here is that the lists contain the names of the ships. Many European immigrants who were coming to America left from ports in the United Kingdom because traveling "steerage" from a British port was less expensive than from European ports. Unfortunately for researchers, to qualify for the lower price, the passengers had to have a British residency of six weeks and so some passengers may have changed their names to avoid the increase in cost.
These examples illustrate an important point. Be creative in your research. Look for details and you just might find a treasure trove of information about your family.
One of my ancestral families, the Parkinsons, came to America from England by way of Australia. Our family records give the name of the ship that they took from England to Australia. It is recorded as the "St. Vincent" arriving in Sydney, Australia on the the 13th of March, 1849. Fortunately, we have a rich heritage of shipping records that include passenger lists and ship manifests, many of which have been digitized and are available online. So I began my search for the St. Vincent. A quick Google search turned up the following from this website: http://www.bruzelius.info/Nautica/Ships/Merchant/Sail/S/St_Vincent(1865).html
St Vincent
A composite full-rigged ship built in 1865 by W. Pile & Co., Sunderland. Dimensions: 190'0"×35'0"×18'9" and tonnage: 892 GRT, 892 NRT and 775 tons under deck.
- 1865 July
- Launched at the shipyard of W. Pile & Co., Sunderland, for Devitt & Moore, London. Assigned the official British Reg. No. 52770 and signal HDRK. Employed in the Australian trade.
- 1865-1872
- In command of Captain Alex. Louttit.
- 1873-1875
- In command of Captain W.H. Bisset.
- 1875-1881
- In command of Captain J.H. Barrett late of the same owner's ship Outalpa.
- 1878 October 27
- "Struck by a heavy squall, sustained severe damage to spars, losing bowsprit, headgear, ..."
- 1881-1884
- In command of Captain A.J. Ismay late of the same owner's ship Dunbar Castle.
- 1884-1887
- In command of Captain Malcolm Nicholson late of the same owner's four-masted barque Simla.
- 1884
- Reduced to barque rig.
- 188_
- Sold to Norwegian owners and was renamed Axel.
- 1907
- Broken up at Dunkerque.
References:
- Square-rigged ships, general references.
- Course, A.G.: Painted Ports. The story of the ships of Messrs Devitt and Moore.
Hollis & Carter, London, 1961. 8vo, x, 230 pp, 6 plates. - Lubbock, Basil: The Colonial Clippers.
Brown, Ferguson & Son, Glasgow, 1948 (2nd).
So, despite the record I first found, there must be another record of a ship by that name. A continued search found the New South Wales 'Online' microfilm of shipping lists. This long list contained the following record of the arrival of the St. Vincent on 11 March 1849.
This website also had a digitized copy of the above passenger list. Incidentally, I also found that Trove.nla.gov.au, the huge Australian website from the Australian National Library has a searchable list of newspaper immigrant arrivals.
These finds show that there are several ways to add information about an immigrant:
- Look for the name of the ship
- Search online lists of ship's names
- Passenger lists
- Ship's manifests
- Newspaper accounts of ship's arrivals
As I kept searching, I found yet another website listing the arrival of the ship in Australia. See Passenger Ships Arriving in Australian Ports. In fact, I kept finding more and more references to the ship lists that included this particular vessel. In fact, I found a drawing of the ship leaving England.
 |
| Emigrant Ship “St.Vincent” shown here departing Deptford, England bound for Sydney, Australia ('The Illustrated London News', April 13th, 1844 Image No.14945) |
“emigration_nsw_1838_on.pdf.” Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.cornwall-opc.org/Resc/pdfs/emigration_nsw_1838_on.pdf.
“RootsWeb: GENANZ-L Re: Convict Ship - St Vincent.” Accessed April 14, 2016. http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GENANZ/2002-04/1020171604.
“VERRALL ... beyond 1066??: Chapter 6 - The St. VINCENT.” Accessed April 14, 2016. http://www.verrallname.com/2013/01/chapter-6-st-vincent.html.
One significant collection of passenger lists is contained in the British Board of Trade Series 27 Passenger lists for ships departing English ports from 1890 to 1960 which can be searched on Findmypast.com and Ancestry.com. The key here is that the lists contain the names of the ships. Many European immigrants who were coming to America left from ports in the United Kingdom because traveling "steerage" from a British port was less expensive than from European ports. Unfortunately for researchers, to qualify for the lower price, the passengers had to have a British residency of six weeks and so some passengers may have changed their names to avoid the increase in cost.
These examples illustrate an important point. Be creative in your research. Look for details and you just might find a treasure trove of information about your family.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Beginning My Intensive Exploration of DNA and Genealogy
After many years of flirting with the topic of DNA and Genealogy, I decided it was time to seriously consider whether or not any of the specific questions I had in my own lines could be reasonably answered through involvement with DNA testing. Since I "inherited" a vast pedigree supposedly extending back many generations, it has taken me years to document enough of what was already there to make judgements about the missing parts of this extensive pedigree. To date, I have not seen any particular use for DNA testing. The only particular instance where it appeared to useful was with a Great-grandfather who was persistently reported as "adopted." Since my parents are 2nd cousins related through this particular grandparent, it is possible that DNA testing could confirm or deny the possibility of adoption and thereby confirm or deny the 2nd cousin relationship of my own parents.
Stay tuned, I will probably have more to say on this subject.
Another major obstacle to my use of DNA testing was the fact that I have little or no contact with the members of the particular families that might confirm or deny the relationship. In addition, there seems to be some long-standing animosity in the family concerning that particular issue. In other words, I might be stepping off into a family feud.
As far as just obtaining a DNA test on a fishing expedition, I am still not convinced that finding out what percentage of my ancestry comes from what part of Europe on a percentage basis is supposed to help me at all, since I have researched, documented, confirmed lines to England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and Denmark. Lately, I have been thinking about another issue. That is my Jewish heritage. My Great-great-grandfather came from England and when he migrated to the Southwestern part of the United States he married my Great-great-grandmother and took her name. His original name was De Friez and when he married he took the name Jarvis. He later had his name changed officially in the Arizona Court. The De Friez surname is commonly found on lists of Jewish surnames in England.
See for example, “Sourcebook for Jewish Genealogies and Family Histories.” Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.avotaynu.com/books/sourcebook.htm.
Currently, on the FamilySearch Family Tree, the De Friez line is shown to extend back from England to the Netherlands where it clearly becomes involved with Jewish families. Lately, I have been considering a DNA test to either give me an incentive to begin confirming this supposed connection or not.
Let me emphasize, I am not starting out on this investigation as a beginner. As I have mentioned before in posts, DNA testing issues have been around for a long time in the legal profession. As a trial attorney, I was always aware of the arguments pro and con to DNA testing and the limits of its use in a trial situation, although as a commercial litigator, I had little use for that type of evidence. See “Paternity FAQ | Arizona Department of Economic Security.” Accessed April 13, 2016. https://des.az.gov/arizona-child-support-paternity-faq. Here is a sample list of articles concerning the validity of DNA testing in courts. You might note that many of these articles are quite dated. The use of DNA testing in many instances is no longer a major issue.
- George Bundy Smith and Janet A. Gordon, The Admission of DNA Evidence in State and Federal Courts, 65 Fordham L. Rev. 2465 (1997). Available at: http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol65/iss6/4
- “Court Admissible DNA Testing in Scottsdale - ARCpoint Labs.” Accessed April 13, 2016. http://scottsdale-az-north.arcpointlabs.com/dna-testing/court-admissible-testing/.
- National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Research Council (US) Committee on DNA Technology in Forensic. “Use of DNA Information in the Legal System,” 1992. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234535/.
- “Novel Scientific Expert Evidence in Arizona State Courts.” Accessed April 13, 2016. https://www.myazbar.org/AZAttorney/Archives/June98/6-98a2.htm.
- Gaspar, Diane. “Establishing Paternity in Arizona.” DivorceNet.com. Accessed April 13, 2016. http://www.divorcenet.com/resources/paternity-arizona.html.
The real issue with DNA testing per se, is the serious issue of unintended consequences. Confirming or denying close family relationships can have serious emotional and other consequences. Likewise, although the DNA type testing done for genealogical purposes does not usually end up with medical issues, genetic testing for gene deficiencies can also have serious and long-lasting family consequences. These aspects of gene testing and certainly downplayed by the proponents of DNA testing for genealogical purposes.
My own observation is that without a specific, researched and documented objective, DNA testing may be motivating or thought provoking but mostly just interesting. Even is this context, finding out that your family line has a significant component of a particular racial or ethnic composition may also have some undesirable consequences.
Considering my own family lines, I am still not certain that DNA testing would give me any solid, useful information that would not still have to be obtained and confirmed through careful, documented research. My method of approaching these issues has always been to read and study everything written on the subject until the additional information I find becomes repetitious.
What I certainly do not need is another biologically related, detailed explanation of X and Y chromosomes. What is more helpful to me is the standard court analysis of this type of information. Here is a quote from the National Center for Biotechnology Information cited above,
Among the issues raised is the validity of the assumptions that (1) except for identical twins, each person's DNA is unique, (2) the technique used allows one to determine whether two DNA samples show the same patterns at particular loci, and (3) the statistical methods used and the available population databanks allow one to assess the probability that two DNA samples from different persons would by chance have the same patterns at the loci studied. Even if those assumptions are accepted, there is the important question of whether (4) the laboratory's procedures and analyses in the case in question were performed in accordance with accepted standards and provide reliable estimates of the probability of a match.I suspect that very, very few genealogists who send off for a mail-order DNA test, have considered these issues with regard to the testing procedure. How do you know that your DNA sample has not been contaminated? I am not challenging the professionalism of the DNA testing companies, I am merely pointing out valid and very important concerns that I would have before I spent my money and subsequent research time based on a DNA test.
Stay tuned, I will probably have more to say on this subject.
Tuesday, April 12, 2016
More Unanswered Questions about Genealogy and the World in General
A couple of years ago, I posted a list of Unanswered Questions. Interestingly, no one has answered (or even tried to answer) any of my questions. In that post, I said I might think about commenting on some of those questions, but I never did. I think it is time to update the list and perhaps make a few comments. Here is my introductory statement from the previous post:
1. Will all the paper documents in the world ever all be digitized?
2. If we are all related to Adam, why don't we all have him in our family trees?
3. Do the large online genealogy companies really expect me to incorporate all those record hints into my own family records?
4. What is genealogy anyway?
5. Why do copyright laws exist?
6. Why do people insist on adding individuals to their family tree without any documentation showing a relationship?
7. How may genealogists does it take to change a light bulb?
8. If DNA is the solution, what is the problem?
9. When will people stop putting surnames in all caps?
10. If Personal Ancestral File is such a great program, why are we still trying to recover files from old 3.5 inch floppy disks?
11. If the entire world is now on Facebook and Instagram, why am I still writing a blog?
12. Is doing your genealogy like Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel?
Having thought about my previous questions, I do have a few comments. I will quote the previous question and then add my comment.
1. If genealogy can be learned in five minutes, why are there 25 five-minute-episodes so far in FamilySearch.org's Learning Center?
2. Which of Adam's children are you descended from? Can you document your sources?
10. Why did so many immigrants change their names when they came to America? Have you read anything about Arizona in the newspapers (or online) recently?
11. How long will it be until I no longer hear, "I don't have any computer skills?"
12. Why do more people do genealogy in the Winter than in the Summer?
When I do a presentation, I usually ask everyone before I start whether or not they have any questions about the known or unknown universe. Occasionally, I will get a question or two but usually everyone just sits there and stares. They are likely weighing my sanity. But often I explain that I always have questions and here are some of the ones that I cannot answer (or have not yet answered).I am still beginning a lot of my classes with the same inquiry as to whether the participants have any questions about the known or unknown universe. I still get almost no responses. The class members still sit there and stare at me. They are still likely weighing my sanity. Most of the time I add that I have lots of questions. Here are a few more I would like to add to my previous list.
[Disclaimer: Some of these questions are not serious, but some of them are]
1. Will all the paper documents in the world ever all be digitized?
2. If we are all related to Adam, why don't we all have him in our family trees?
3. Do the large online genealogy companies really expect me to incorporate all those record hints into my own family records?
4. What is genealogy anyway?
5. Why do copyright laws exist?
6. Why do people insist on adding individuals to their family tree without any documentation showing a relationship?
7. How may genealogists does it take to change a light bulb?
8. If DNA is the solution, what is the problem?
9. When will people stop putting surnames in all caps?
10. If Personal Ancestral File is such a great program, why are we still trying to recover files from old 3.5 inch floppy disks?
11. If the entire world is now on Facebook and Instagram, why am I still writing a blog?
12. Is doing your genealogy like Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel?
Having thought about my previous questions, I do have a few comments. I will quote the previous question and then add my comment.
1. If genealogy can be learned in five minutes, why are there 25 five-minute-episodes so far in FamilySearch.org's Learning Center?
Comment: There are now 57 five minute episodes in the Learning Center. It looks like 5 minutes is not quite enough time to explain genealogy.
Comment: I was interested to read recently someone's view that Adam only had two children. I am guessing that the person was not a genealogist and that the person had not read the Genesis Chapter 4.
Comment: I had to think about these two questions for a minute to remember my point. But then I have moved to Utah and there is an election going on this year.
Comment: I will not live long enough to see this question answered.
Comment: This question also is partially answered by having spent a winter in the Frozen North rather than the low desert.
As time goes by, I am sure that I will have a lot more questions and I am getting old enough that I am pretty sure not all of them will be answered during my lifetime.
Sunday, April 10, 2016
Plumbing the Depths of Cemeteries
OK, after this post, I will lay off posting about cemeteries for a while. But I did have a few more things to say. There are some important issues that need to be summarized that all genealogists should keep in mind when they think about cemeteries.
First of all, a cemetery is a specific geographic location. This may seem obvious, but when you think of cemeteries, if you do, you probably have a lot of cultural and social baggage that comes with your thoughts on the subject. But all sentimentality and other cultural artifacts aside, from a genealogical standpoint, a cemetery is a location where some information about our ancestors may be located. I am using the term "cemetery" to include all possible and conceivable burial locations. I suppose the term "grave sites" might be more inclusive, but the word "cemetery" will do.
Aside from the social and cultural ties associated with the burial location of an individual, absent any information that can be obtained from the grave markers or records associated with the cemetery or burial, the most important information about the cemetery is its location. In the event their are multiple burials, the next most important information concerns the arrangement and proximity of the graves. In both cases, the identity of the person buried in each location is also equally as important. So, we are looking primarily for the identity of the individuals buried, the arrangement and proximity of their graves and the overall location of the burial site. Any other information that can be obtained is a bonus.
Now, let's look at the majority of the records you might encounter. We immediately get into a chicken and the egg problem. If I happen to know where my ancestor is buried, I can find burial information. If I don't know have any idea where the ancestor died, how do I find a burial? So what good is it to have huge lists of cemeteries and burials? Searching by my ancestor's name is now much of a help in many cases. I have run across relatives who were buried with names that were either not their birth name or were the name they went by and not their "real" name at all. Having huge online gravesite lists is only partially helpful in these situations.
I think I will start with FindAGrave.com, the most popular and used online cemetery database. Let's see how helpful the program really is to a genealogical researcher. If I search for a cemetery without putting in its location, I will have to know the name of the cemetery. If I search by location, it gives me a long list of cemeteries. For example, if I search for the "St. Johns Cemetery," I get 565 responses. Not helpful. If I put in the state, then I get two choices. If I choose the one I am looking for in Apache County, Arizona, then I am shown the cemetery listing. There is a map of the cemetery location using Google Maps. But now, I have 1,599 interments to review. What it comes down to is that I may be able to find the cemetery, if I know its name, but when I look at the list of burials, unless I know how my ancestor was named at the time of death, I have to guess. In this case, there are 1,597 names in the list. Does this mean there are three unidentified graves? Do I know how many total people are buried in the cemetery? Does the number of interments equal the total number of burials? What if the cemetery has only been partially surveyed? All of these are unanswered questions.
If I start over again and search for a name, how do I know that is the name that was used on the burial marker? Let's suppose I do find my ancestor, I still do not know where he or she is buried and I certainly do not know if any family members are buried close by. In short, FindAGrave.com does not give me any of what I consider to be the crucial information concerning a burial. Now, I could go on and use BillionGraves.com for a comparison. But it would not be fair to FindAGrave.com to do so. Of course, BillionGraves.com gives me all three pieces of information I am seeking. It gives me the location of the cemetery, the exact location of the grave and the identity and proximity of all the surrounding graves. Both programs provide a photo of the grave marker, if there is one. Neither program provides any of the other records associated directly with the cemetery or grave, although BillionGraves.com does link to other websites with additional death information. What about all of the "memorial" information given in FindAGrave.com? This information is usually lacking any source citations or other details and falls into the category of user contributed information with about the same usefulness as online family trees without sources. Helpful, but not too reliable.
For a genealogist, these two programs provide substantial help in locating graves. But what about graves that are not yet recorded in either program? Genealogical researchers are on their own to identify and locate these burials. Granted, there are a huge number of books and other documents concerning burials, but it takes some considerable skill and a lot of map references and perhaps GPS coordinates to ultimately locate the cemetery and further skills to identify and catalog the burials. In some cases, there are narrative descriptions of the cemetery or burial site that aid the researcher. But the trick is finding these additional records.
What it boils down to is that locating burials is still genealogical research. The large online databases simplify the process in many, many cases, but there is still more work to be done even if you have a listing of the burial. There are a multitude of associated records that may be available about the death, the burial and the cemetery. I suggest that finding the grave is only the first of many challenges.
First of all, a cemetery is a specific geographic location. This may seem obvious, but when you think of cemeteries, if you do, you probably have a lot of cultural and social baggage that comes with your thoughts on the subject. But all sentimentality and other cultural artifacts aside, from a genealogical standpoint, a cemetery is a location where some information about our ancestors may be located. I am using the term "cemetery" to include all possible and conceivable burial locations. I suppose the term "grave sites" might be more inclusive, but the word "cemetery" will do.
Aside from the social and cultural ties associated with the burial location of an individual, absent any information that can be obtained from the grave markers or records associated with the cemetery or burial, the most important information about the cemetery is its location. In the event their are multiple burials, the next most important information concerns the arrangement and proximity of the graves. In both cases, the identity of the person buried in each location is also equally as important. So, we are looking primarily for the identity of the individuals buried, the arrangement and proximity of their graves and the overall location of the burial site. Any other information that can be obtained is a bonus.
Now, let's look at the majority of the records you might encounter. We immediately get into a chicken and the egg problem. If I happen to know where my ancestor is buried, I can find burial information. If I don't know have any idea where the ancestor died, how do I find a burial? So what good is it to have huge lists of cemeteries and burials? Searching by my ancestor's name is now much of a help in many cases. I have run across relatives who were buried with names that were either not their birth name or were the name they went by and not their "real" name at all. Having huge online gravesite lists is only partially helpful in these situations.
I think I will start with FindAGrave.com, the most popular and used online cemetery database. Let's see how helpful the program really is to a genealogical researcher. If I search for a cemetery without putting in its location, I will have to know the name of the cemetery. If I search by location, it gives me a long list of cemeteries. For example, if I search for the "St. Johns Cemetery," I get 565 responses. Not helpful. If I put in the state, then I get two choices. If I choose the one I am looking for in Apache County, Arizona, then I am shown the cemetery listing. There is a map of the cemetery location using Google Maps. But now, I have 1,599 interments to review. What it comes down to is that I may be able to find the cemetery, if I know its name, but when I look at the list of burials, unless I know how my ancestor was named at the time of death, I have to guess. In this case, there are 1,597 names in the list. Does this mean there are three unidentified graves? Do I know how many total people are buried in the cemetery? Does the number of interments equal the total number of burials? What if the cemetery has only been partially surveyed? All of these are unanswered questions.
If I start over again and search for a name, how do I know that is the name that was used on the burial marker? Let's suppose I do find my ancestor, I still do not know where he or she is buried and I certainly do not know if any family members are buried close by. In short, FindAGrave.com does not give me any of what I consider to be the crucial information concerning a burial. Now, I could go on and use BillionGraves.com for a comparison. But it would not be fair to FindAGrave.com to do so. Of course, BillionGraves.com gives me all three pieces of information I am seeking. It gives me the location of the cemetery, the exact location of the grave and the identity and proximity of all the surrounding graves. Both programs provide a photo of the grave marker, if there is one. Neither program provides any of the other records associated directly with the cemetery or grave, although BillionGraves.com does link to other websites with additional death information. What about all of the "memorial" information given in FindAGrave.com? This information is usually lacking any source citations or other details and falls into the category of user contributed information with about the same usefulness as online family trees without sources. Helpful, but not too reliable.
For a genealogist, these two programs provide substantial help in locating graves. But what about graves that are not yet recorded in either program? Genealogical researchers are on their own to identify and locate these burials. Granted, there are a huge number of books and other documents concerning burials, but it takes some considerable skill and a lot of map references and perhaps GPS coordinates to ultimately locate the cemetery and further skills to identify and catalog the burials. In some cases, there are narrative descriptions of the cemetery or burial site that aid the researcher. But the trick is finding these additional records.
What it boils down to is that locating burials is still genealogical research. The large online databases simplify the process in many, many cases, but there is still more work to be done even if you have a listing of the burial. There are a multitude of associated records that may be available about the death, the burial and the cemetery. I suggest that finding the grave is only the first of many challenges.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)